National Friday League, Week 7

Chad Henne and Mike Sims-Walker edition

Viking-Packer Preview

2010 Vikings

2010 Packers

I watched the Dolphins beat the Packers last Sunday, and I thought the Packer defense looked pretty helpless. They couldn't really rush the passer, weren't good at stopping the run, and were leaving open receivers all over the place. If Chad Henne weren't regularly throwing passes high, the Dolphins might have been torching the Packers (Brandon Marshall was still like a demigod out there). The Packers have suffered some major injuries this season, so it might just be a depleted team (that could be less depleted this week). But that defense looked imminently beatable, even though the Viking o-line has been pretty lousy.

And offensively the Packers still have two problems: they can't run the ball, and they struggle to protect the passer. Aaron Rodgers' most impressive display of skill is the mobility he is required to show in order not to get sacked 10 times a game. Of course, all he has to do is find Donald Driver or Greg Jennings matched up against Lito Sheppard on one out of three downs, and the Vikings are cooked.

None of these things matter, of course. Whether the Vikings or the Packers might actually be better than the other barely matters. These two teams will likely do what these two teams do against each other: they'll play a streaky game featuring offensive scoring streaks by each team, it will come down to one or two late possessions, and, likely, the home team will win.

But here's a new way to talk myself into optimism about the Vikings: Adrian Peterson and Randy Moss. These are two players whom we know--we know--can absolutely take over a game and dominate, giving the Vikings a chance to win in virtually any situation against any opponent. They don't do it often (few do). But just look at the game logs. Adrian Peterson has had 160+ yards rushing seven times. Randy Moss has had 36 multi-touchdown games. The Vikings now have two explosive, super-talented, dominating players that on occasion take over football games. It's going to happen again this year. Whenever there's a time that things look bleak, we should remember that: we have two players who might, at any surprising moment, take over. And I could see either guy doing that this week.

Other Intriguing Matchups

Week Seven Schedule

NFL Standings

Bengals-Falcons.

Both teams seem really average, with the potential to be a lot better. That's probably a fair description for this blog, too: really average, with the potential to be a lot better.

Steelers-Dolphins.

I said last week I'm intrigued by the Dolphins, and that's the truth (I finally traded for Ronnie Brown this week, suckers! Tony Gonzalez, straight-up, and now I'm in a situation where I'm required to start Mike Sims-Walker for one week, which is obviously awful, but when you get a chance to trade for a guy with one TD that's averaging 60 rush yards per game, you have to jump on it). But the Steelers are, in my opinion, the best team in the NFL, maybe by a long way. This will be a test to find out of the Dolphins are a contender or an interesting 7-9 team. If Chad Henne weren't Chad Henne, I'd think the Dolphins have enough offensive weapons to move the ball for a few drives against the Steeler defense, and make a tight game of this. But I have not been impressed with Henne's accuracy, which makes me wonder how many opportunity-plays the Dolphins will blow. "Opportunity-plays" is a concept I'm trying out. It's a big play that's there, that a team can get and that can change the game, but that they can also miss out on. In last week's Viking game, E. J. Henderson made two opportunity-plays, an interception a tipped ball (it was there, and a defender just needed to make the play, but it could have just as easily been dropped by somebody), and an interception on a pass that required a savvy, athletic move. In last week's Packer-Dolphin game, Brandon Marshall got very open a lot, which I'd consider an opportunity-play: the receiver is wide open, and if the line protects, the QB sees him and throws an accurate ball, and the receiver doesn't drop it, a big play is made. In that game, Miami's line protected, Marshall was wide open, and Henne usually threw high. Sometimes Marshall made the play anyway, and sometimes he couldn't. This has gotten pretty rambling, just terrible: I realize the whole point of National Friday League is to be rambling, but I teach freshman composition so I'm still embarrassed by it (and I'm not helping matters, really, by explicitly discussing it, but here I go). My point is, there will be a small number of opportunity-plays for the Miami offense, and they'll have to be precise, hitting on a high number of them. I think they'll miss on too many of them.

Jaguars-Chiefs.

The Chiefs are another team that will probably be making me say "How good are they, really?" all the way until Week 17. They should beat this Jaguar team, whose pass coverage fluctuates between ungodly awful and ungodly terrible. Plus, Mike Sims-Walker running patterns while a backup QB drops back into the pocket! This is real football, folks!

Eagles-Titans.

Interesting game, because both teams look good, but both teams might be really good.

Cardinals-Seahawks.

3-2 NFC West rivals. The Cardinals have been outscored by 50 this season.

Patriots-Chargers.

I think you should smile if you have fantasy starters going in this game.

Irrational Viking Fan

At this point, Brett Favre has done no more--and possibly less--for the Vikings historically than Randall Cunningham did (it's true: try to dispute it), except in this: he tainted a beloved icon of Packer fans, which is itself something.

NFC North Box

The Bears really might get to 10 wins this year. The Bears also could lose to absolutely any team on their schedule. Even Buffalo. I'm terrified to play them because Julius Peppers has had some monster games against the Childress-era Vikings (it seems in my hazy memory that the Vikes have been content to let a tackle block him one-on-one, which has been like being content to let a bear wander around your living room).

Every scandal is an opportunity for new expressions of meaning

I think "I just got done with practice" should be the new code for "I would like you to have sex with me." I'm told by those that matter that this is a terrible idea.

Again: in praise of DVR
When I was a teenager, I suddenly realized I watch a sickly amount of basketball when, sometime in March, I watched a trailing team foul intentionally for what felt like the thousandth time that season. And last Sunday, I realized I watch a sickly amount of football when I watched a receiver get tackled a yard short on third down, wondered how many receivers I’ve seen get tackled a yard short on third down in the past two months, and realized it was too many.

I have two small children that get a lot of my time. I also have a job that demands a lot of my time, including evenings and weekends to grade papers. How am I watching all this football?

The answer is obvious: DVR. When my kids need or want my attention, I can pause the game whenever I like. When my insane dog needs to go out, I pause. During night games, I generally record/pause the game and then go about doing necessary tasks for an hour or more--usually grading papers--and when I'm done I turn on the game, zipping through and catching up before the game ends. I've paused games to get ready for the next day, to wash dishes, to get laundry, to do any number of necessary tasks. DVR allows me to function as a dad, teacher, and housekeeper while still getting to watch football seemingly constantly.

Announcers during blowouts say the darndest things.
As Monday night's Jaguar-Titan game devolved not only into a blowout, but a boring blowout featuring backup quarterbacks, I started reading The New Yorker (because I like to try fulfill the stereotype of an urbane liberal) while the game was on in the background. I heard Ron Jaworski say this: "You get that first score, then you're in a situation where you're only a couple scores behind." Beautiful. Just beautiful.

Announcers talking quarterbacks say the darndest things.

Let me continue talking about Chad Henne way too much in this blog entry. During the Dolphin-Packer game, Dan Fouts defended Henne based on his inexperience, suggesting he hadn't had that much time and that he's learning and maturing. At one point, Henne threw a ball away. Fouts said what announcers seem to think is a wise thing to say whenever a young QB throws the ball away: that it was a smart move not to try force a pass, that earlier in his career, maybe even earlier this season, Henne might have forced it rather than throw it away. Did Fouts mean earlier this season...like Henne's previous game, when he threw three interceptions? Was it just over the bye week that Henne learned to throw it away? And is throwing the ball away one time, while being chased around by pass rushers, really something special showing the wise maturity of a QB?

Do we really have to hear announcers heap praise on a young QB for knowing not to chuck the ball into coverage? Any time a young QB throws the ball away we hear about it from the announcers like we just watched a baby learn to eat with a spoon for the first time. Throwing the ball away rather than taking a sack or throwing the ball into coverage does not, in fact, make a quarterback a genius: it's not exactly Darwin's insight here. But by all means, praise the QB that you just sat down with in a production meeting and had a friendly, personable discussion with, that you now find yourself wanting to be friendly toward: your job doesn't require objective analysis or anything. Throwing the ball into the sidelines is probably the greatest skill a young QB can have: nothing else really matters, actually. Reading defenses, throwing accurate passes to open receivers, none of that compares to being able to hit an assistant coach's clipboard as you're being chased by defensive ends.

Why did Chris Johnson get carries late?

Leading by 20 points with a few minutes left, the Titans left Chris Johnson in the game to get some late carries. I'll never really understand this: why? When the game is not in doubt and you just need to run out clock, why not use your backup running back, rather than the superstar running back on whom most of your hopes depend? Is it really worthwhile to let your star player get tackled a few extra times, when those carries are no longer necessary to win the game? My theory is that NFL coaches devote so much mental energy to preparation for a single game and have a certain degree of, not anxiety exactly, but let's say edgy intensity, that it takes quite a giant lead with quite little time left before they are actually convinced themselves that the game is in hand.

Fantasy Box

J'Rod gave me the idea to follow my fantasy players on Twitter. It's a good idea, because it is one more way to keep Mike Sims-Walker in my life.

Frank Deford might just not have much to say anymore

In 2010, Frank Deford has the very fresh take on NPR that technology and ticket prices make some fans prefer watching games on television rather than in person, and includes such insightful observations as

"But even more important, younger fans have been raised on TV and other electronic entertainment — these are people who play video games for fun by themselves and who don't communicate so much face-to-face, but text on cell phones."

He so nailed young people!

To be fair, evidently Deford was once one of the best, and trying to be creative talking/writing about sports over the course of decades is probably difficult. But even more important, older sportswriters are trained to see new technology as destructive and damaging--these are people who treat younger people with a mixture of confusion and contempt, and who don't so much write well, but write a lot.

Weekend

Enjoy your weekend, everybody. Except Packer and Bear fans.

Weird Misogyny in Sports Commentary

If you are talking about a man, and your point is that he’s irrational yet appealing, does it really provide much insight to say “he’s like an irrational yet appealing woman!”

I wouldn’t think so. Of course, some people think otherwise.

Addendum

I decided on a brief note with commentary implicit, but now I feel like expanding just a bit.

A male athlete behaves erratically. In order to provide perspective on the situation, a sportswriter appeals to a negative stereotype of women behaving erratically. What is the compulsion to do so? Why is it necessary to go to a stereotype of the "crazy hot chick" in order to explain a situation involving a crazy/erratic male athlete? For one thing, I think it provides pretty banal commentary. But it also seems to fit into a pattern of creepy sexism.

I'll add that claiming a crazy but talented man is like a crazy but hot woman illustrates a very basic insight of feminism: men are valued for their actions/abilities, women are valued for their sexual attractiveness.

National Friday League, Week Three

Viking Preview
If the Vikes lose this one, Brett Favre should retire immediately.

The 2010 Vikings are more like the ’08 Vikes than the ’09 Vikes (and that’s OK, if they realize it)
The ’09 Vikings were an offensive juggernaut, scoring loads of points primarily through the passing game. If the first couple of games of ’10 are any indication, this Viking team is not like that Viking team. But this team bears remarkable similarities to the ’08 Viking team that started the season 0-2 and rallied to win the division.

The ’08 Vikings leaned heavily on Adrian Peterson (1,760 yards), and played frequently dominant defense (in nine games after the bye, they allowed opposing offenses to score 13 touchdowns, going 7-2 in the process). And if the ’10 Vikings’ first two games are indicative, this Viking team can still win games like the ’08 Vikings did. The Viking defense has done a superb job, in my opinion. They went on the road and held the Saints to 14 points. At home against the Dolphins, they allowed zero points after the first drive, and in the fourth quarter repeatedly did exactly what they needed to do to stop the Dolphins and get the ball back for the offense as quickly as possible.

The ’10 Vikes have more potential than that team, because Brett Favre has more potential for success than ’08 Gus Frerotte or ’08 Tarvaris Jackson had. But they can win games if they lean on Adrian Peterson and dominate defensively. They just have to realize that’s the sort of team they are. That means sometimes taking early field goals because you know the game will be close.* That means sometimes playing for field position because you can trust the defense to get the ball back for you quickly. It means not taking too many risks in the passing game (but picking their spots, sure).

The Vikes can rally: the defense will keep them in games, they have talented offensive players including a workhorse running back, and Brett Favre will not suck that bad in every game this year.

*I'd almost always go for it on fourth down from inside the three: if you don't get it, you're probably getting the ball back soon, and it good field position. Outside the 20, when you'd still have to gain more yards to get a TD rather than FG? With a reliable offense, yes. Without? Take the points. That's why this year the Vikings are a take the points team.

Irrational Viking Fan
Don Draper and Pete Campbell
I’ve only seen season one of Mad Men, so don’t spoil anything for me. But ever since RK madethe comparison of Aaron Rodgers to Howard from Death of a Salesman, I keep seeing Aaron Rodgers as Pete Campbell from Mad Men. And I hate Pete Campbell. When I see the look on Aaron Rodgers’ face, I associate him with all the worst qualities of Pete Campbell.

(And so I bought a fedora hat today. What, do you really think I did that in a misbegotten attempt to look like Don Draper? What do you take me for? You don't know my motivations. You can't prove anything. And anyway, isn't Draper kind of a major douche, tormented nihilistic soul or not? I suppose you think I'm silly for buying a tie for the first time in my memory, too. Well, screw you for judging me).

The Wheel of Fortune
The wheel of fortune spins: whomever it brings to the top, it will swing back down to the bottom.

From the ’04 playoffs through 2005, the Vikings won three straight games against the Packers. From ’06 through the first game of ’08, the Packers won five straight over the Vikings. And from ’08 through ’09, the Vikings defeated the Packers three straight times and claimed two division titles.

As far as the Viking-Packer rivaly goes, 2009 was Minnesota’s year. But I think I can say honestly that I did not try to rub anything in to Packer fans. I’ve been through enough Viking seasons to live in terror anytime things seem to be going well—and living in terror means little time for gloating. And I know how the wheel of fortune spins: somebody gets brought to the top, sure, but that somebody gets crashed back to the bottom again. For sure. The wheel keeps spinning.

And now, with the Vikes 0-2 and the Packers 2-0, it appears that 2010 may, broadly speaking, be the Packers’ year. Packer fans may be riding high all of 2010, and they’ll have their chance to rub it in. Maybe the wheel has spun, and it is the Packers’ turn at the top.* Maybe this is your chance to roll, Packer fans. But the wheel of fortune spins.

*Let’s stick with “maybe.” The Vikes still have a chance to salvage the season, will play the Packers strong in their head-to-head matchups, and if nothing else, Go Bears!

Season Preferences
Here are my preferences for the season, in order:

#1: The Vikings right the proverbial ship, make their way to the playoffs, and make a deep playoff run.
#2: A complete, total, disastrous collapse of the season.

#3: Stumbling toward a .500 season and missing the playoffs.

The reasons I prefer 2. to 3. are plenty. For one thing, epic failures are more entertaining to watch than muddling mediocrity (though stumbling to .500 with a shot at the playoffs makes each game more exciting and engaging. I am such a wishy washy thinker that I need to undercut my own thoughts in the parentheses). But there are other reasons. I think, eventually, Brad Childress will discover for certain that Tarvaris Jackson can’t really be a consistent starting QB—if that were to somehow happen in 2010 rather than 2011, we take a healthy step toward the future a year early. The Vikes also have some young players that have shown sparks of stardom, some who haven’t had an opportunity to do so yet, and several that the Vikings need to decide about for long-term contracts. A collapse might mean leaning more on those players. If the Vikes aren’t going to win the Super Bowl this season, then I’d rather see them move toward a future where they can win the Super Bowl—whatever that takes, even if it means a brutal nadir to get there. In Nathaniel Hawthorne's "My Kinsman, Major Molineux," Robin goes through one miserable, confusing, awful night--but he comes out of it with a new, important insight into the world. If he never saw his tarred and feathered kinsman paraded down the streets, if he never joined into the mocking laughter, he might never have learned what he needed to learn.

But preferably, the future is now. The Vikes have a fairly high number of star veterans that might not have much left (Pat Williams, Antoine Winfield, Steve Hutchinson, Brett Favre). The Vikes also have a handful of Hall-of-Fame quality starters in their primes (Jared Allen, Kevin Williams, Adrian Peterson). This is no time to waste. It’s just if it’s going to be wasted, I’d prefer disaster to mediocrity.

Other Intriguing Matchups

Week Three Schedule

Falcons-Saints. If you watched the 49ers-Saints Monday, you saw another game where the Saints did not outplay an opponent, but benefitted from that opponent making one disastrous mistake after another. That was an incredible display by San Francisco: they moved the ball, and they successfully stopped the Saints, but they repeatedly acted as if it might be more fun to lose the game than win. Snapping the ball over the QB’s head out of the back of the end zone for a safety on the first drive? Sure. Drive down the field before halftime but fumble inside the 15. Why not? Muff a punt late in the game? Of course. Start a drive with a delay of game penalty? Why would you be ready at the start of a drive? Just incredible. Anyway, I don’t think the Saints are that good, and the Falcons might be.

49ers-Chiefs. One of these teams will reveal itself. I don’t know which one.

Cowboys-Texans. One of these teams will reveal itself. I don’t know which one.

Colts-Broncos. Indianapolis sliced up the Giants last Sunday in ways I haven’t seen anybody sliced up in a long, long time.

Packers-Bears. When I was a kid, I had this Chicago Bears hooded sweatshirt that somehow got passed down to me—I don’t know how or from where. I would wear it outside to play basketball or shovel snow. I don’t know what happened to that hoodie (though we didn’t call them hoodies in the bad old days of the mid-90s, did we?). If I still had it, I’d be donning it Monday night. Go Bears.

The Quarterback Position
Matthew Yglesias argues that the Eagles keeping two starter-quality QBs is a bad idea:

“it’s also mighty inefficient. Whether or not Kevin Kolb is a better quarterback than Vick, I think it’s pretty clear that Vick is one of the top 30 QBs in the league. That means he’s worth more to someone else as a starter than he is to Philadelphia as a backup and the Eagles should trade him. It never really makes sense for a team to be carrying two different starter-quality quarterbacks.”

But here’s the problem with that argument: what if the Eagles accepted this argument before the season started? Then when their starter, Kevin Kolb, got injured, they would have been left with a low-quality starter to replace him. Instead of Michael Vick leading them to a three-point win, it’s quite likely a poor quarterback would have led them to a loss.

Quarterback is a critically important position. It may seem inefficient to keep two good quarterbacks, but I’m not entirely sure it’s a good idea to go into a season saying “Oh well, if our starting QB gets hurt, we’re just screwed anyway.” I’m also not sure it’s a good idea to go into a season saying “Oh well, our starting QB only has two career starts, but if we learn he sucks the whole team can just go down with him.”

Now, why am I bothering with the sports argument of a political blogger here (especially as the situation has changed, and Vick will start)? Because I’ve largely stopped reading most sportswriters’ commentary. Most sportswriters’ commentary provides little insight, and I no longer have the inclination (or time) to read bad sportswriters just to criticize them on this blog. So I’ve quit reading them. There are some sportswriters who do offer quality analysis—but I can’t bring myself to read much about football following a Viking loss (I also can’t bring myself to write much after a Viking loss—sorry. If you’d like me to write a lot after a Viking loss, find a way to get me paid to do this. Actually, don’t: I don’t need the added responsibility. I’m writing this after mental exhaustion from grading papers). I do, however, still occasionally read political blogs, and occasionally come across sports arguments, and occasionally find them flawed. So here we are.

Things to look forward to now the Vikes are 0-2
This might finally be the season that Ted meets his kids’ mother.

Fantasy Box

No, I did not try hard to trade away Frank Gore last week. That would be crazy. If anybody tries to tell you I tried to do that, they are lying. Don't be a liar. Frank Gore is awesome, and I've always known it--I wouldn't trade him for anybody. And fantasy football is not about luck.

Weekend
Have a good weekend everybody. Except Lion fans. The Packers don’t play until Monday, so Packer fans, I don’t care about your weekend. Bears fans: I hope you enjoy Monday.

National Friday League, Week One (update below)

What's that, you say? It's Monday? Well, National Friday League is meant to be discuss the NFL (and whatever else the parenthetical tangents take me to) right before the weekend (though I'll generally post it Thursday evening--busy working on Friday and all), but this week the Vikes play Thursday, so I'm popping out a massive National Friday League right away this week (includes some week one preview, some league preview stuff). If' I've got more to add throughout the week, I'll add updates.

During the actual football season, there will be two regular weekly posts at PV: National Friday League, which brings together stories from the week and preview of the weekend in a fun, wandering post, and a post commenting on the Viking game (usually posted on the same day as the game, with possible updates added later). So, enjoy?

Last year was the Favre year. I have a bad feeling this year will either be the "Last season was our year and we blew it; it's not happening" year or the "This Brett Favre thing went on just longer than it should have" year. Maybe I've become desperately pessimistic, though (about the fate of human life on this earth we're wrecking, mostly, but about football too). On that cheery parenthetical, welcome back, everybody!

Vikings-Saints
Since the NFL started giving week one Thursday Night home games to the defending champion in ‘04, the home team defending champion has yet to lose that game. That hasn’t always been a harbinger for the season (the ’06 and ’09 Steelers missed the playoffs, for example), though the loser of this game has missed the playoffs for five straight seasons. But that’s the way this game has gone for six straight years: the defending champ wins its Thursday Night home opener. Emotional momentum wins, with a defending champ home team energized by celebration and cheering? Maybe. Scheduling, as an obviously good team is sometimes matched up against an intriguing but underwhelming opponent? Absolutely. Luck, as the first game is often too early for the random things (injuries, the bounces of an odd-shaped ball, etc.) that went right the previous season to go wrong in the followup season? Maybe.

I see this as a lose-lose situation. For one thing, all of the images we see are going to be so similar to the images we saw last January (white Viking uniforms, black Saint uniforms, the Superdome as backdrop, plus the network will show a lot of actual footage from that game) that it’s going to be hard not to scratch off old scabs. But if the Vikings win, while it will feel emotionally and psychologically wonderful, and the Vikes would start 1-0, there would still be that feeling that, well, this one doesn’t really matter (remember when the Vikes opened with a win against Atlanta in ’99?). Obviously a Viking win would bring joy, but bittersweet joy at that.

And if the Vikings lose, it means seeing the Vikings lose. It also means seeing the Saints win again, it means seeing the Vikes lose an important NFC game, it means seeing the Vikes start 0-1, and it means nine days of doubt before the Vikings play again.

I don’t have much confidence, but I also see the Viking pass rush being disruptive and the possibility of Adrian Peterson going for 150.

Other Intriguing Week One Matchups
Week One Schedule

In week one, isn’t every game at least mildly intriguing? I’d prefer some games, but I’d watch any. So here are some comments on either each game, or a team in each game.

Bengals-Patriots

Randy Moss looks like he’s ready to party again, and bring Tom Brady along for the fun of it.

Colts-Texans

For any new readers (or long-time readers that have forgotten): for a Viking blogger, I talk way too much about the Indianapolis Colts. Somewhere along the line Peyton Manning became my favorite non-Viking and I watch him whenever I can, and somewhere else along the line I started drafting Colts in fantasy football as if they were the only team in the league (and yes, every Week 17, that sucks).

Broncos-Jaguars

I’ve always been pretty good at simply not paying attention to cultural things that I’m just not interested in. Maybe I’ve mellowed a lot, but I also have no interest in tearing down those things I don’t care about: if other people really enjoy something that I don’t, well, what do I care? I find Two and a Half Men wildly unfunny, but a lot of people seem to like it. I care precisely zero about soccer, but when everybody was talking about the World Cup this summer, I didn’t bother complaining or ranting about soccer sucking or anything like that. I don’t enjoy the sport, I recognize others do, so I just don’t pay attention and let others enjoy what they enjoy. I pay virtually no attention to popular music: the first and often only time I hear recent hits is on Glee. I really like the ‘80s version of The Twilight Zone: whatever, don’t bug me. Maybe I’m just comfortable being outside the mainstream on many things, but I just let the things I don’t care about go, becoming moderately aware of them when necessary.

Anyway: so this fellow named Tim Tebow used to play football at the University of Florida, and now he’s on the Denver Broncos? Or so I hear. He's left-handed, huh? So that's cool.

Raiders-Titans

I will never stop believing in Vince Young. Every season I expect Young to go romp all over everybody. It starts here.

Lions-Bears

These are human beings who play football.

Falcons-Steelers

I find the Steelers without Roethlisberger all sorts of intriguing. I just hope either Leftwich or Dixon don’t screw up the supreme joy that is Mike Wallace.

Packers-Eagles

Before the game, Michael Vick and Kevin Kolb can talk about how much pleasure they got/get from killing animals. Vick’s version of killing animals makes him a national pariah; Kolb’s version of killing animals makes him an outdoorsman. Social mores, everybody! Anyway, I hope the Eagles blitz the shit out of Rodgers.

Dolphins-Bills

I suspect Miami will not be good this year because offensively, they are relying on one RB (Ricky Williams) in his 30s with an historically anomalous career that seems difficult to count on, one RB (Ronnie Brown) that is good but has had some major injuries that may diminish his game, and a young unproven quarterback (Chad Henne) that for all we know will never be more than mediocre. That seems like a lot to worry about. Of course, that anomalous RB might produce again (he is a vegetarian, so I’ve got a soft spot and a rooting interest in him), that RB returning from injury might still have his burst and stay healthy all season, and that unproven quarterback might actually emerge (it happens). Not a team I'd rely on for 16 games, but not a team to be surprised by if they’re good, either.

Browns-Buccaneers

Expect a lot from Jake Delhomme, and he’ll probably disappoint you. Stick him on a lousy team that’s mostly counted out, and he’ll probably make them competitive. My prediction: Delhomme leads the Browns to a respectably competitive season (7-9 wins, let’s say), going into 2011 (assuming there's football in 2011) you’ll read some “Hey, how about those Browns emerging” articles, and then Delhomme will not be able to get them above that mediocrity.

Panthers-Giants

The '08 Giants had two 1,000 yard RBs; the ’09 Panthers had two 1,000 yard RBs. If any of you have ever had a video game football team with THREE 1,000 yard rushers in one season, you can actually describe it in detail in the comments section, and I will actually be legitimately interested.

49ers-Seahawks

I’m thinking career year for Frank Gore, a top-5 RB fantasy season.

Cardinals-Rams

The post-Warner Cards have so many offensive questions, yet they start the season with a game that probably won’t answer a single one of them. Of course, if they suck against the Rams, we can guess they probably suck.

Cowboys-Washington

Is it just the distortions of self-selective memory, or do we get to see NFC East teams play each other in Prime Time approximately a dozen times a season?

Ravens-Jets

I don’t think the Jets will possibly live up to the hype, but defensively, they provide a good opening test and show for the Ravens’ offense. It’s weird: I’m really high on Joe Flacco as a fantasy QB, then recall that in last year’s playoffs he did precisely nothing. Does that mean anything? Probably not.

Chargers-Chiefs

How many of you will watch this game closely because it’s week one and you love the chance to watch pro football, but when these teams play again in December, you’ll only notice for the fantasy stats?

Irrational Viking Fan
This is a new feature. While I’m obviously biased and emotional, at this blog I actually generally seek reason and evidence. Now, a weekly feature where I offer irrational feelings.

I believe the national media loves the Green Bay Packers. They love the city, the fans, the stadium, the tradition, the city ownership, the cold, even the bratwurst. This national love of the Packers has led many national media members to anoint Aaron Rodgers the new Jesus. Rodgers now gets the Favre treatment, where whatever he does broadcasters will spew words of wonderment. A decade from now, Rodgers will still be getting praised for the poise he showed taking over the team from Brett Favre. If there’s any sense, national fans will one day be as tired of the media salivation of Rodgers as they’ve become with the media salivation of Brett Favre.

This has been Irrational Viking Fan.

Adrian Peterson
In 2008, Peterson averaged 4.15 yards per attempt or better in 15 of 17 games.
In 2009, Peterson was held under 4.0 yards per attempt in 10 of 18 games.

That difference is huge. In ’08, Peterson was a consistently dominant running back, capable of carrying the Vikings (10 games with 100+ yards, three games of 160+ yards). In ’09, he was more of a conventionally good elite RB, and was frequently contained or shut down.*

Peterson needs to return to his ’07 and ’08 form, when he could bust out a dominant game at any moment, and when he could generally be relied on to be a productive offensive fource.

*Being under 4.0 yards per attempt is not always being contained. In Peterson’s game against a tough Cincinnati run defense (26-97-2, 3-40), he had 3.73 yards per attempt, but was really a force in beating the Bengals. His second Packer game (25-97-1, 1-44) was also effective, though he had 3.88 yards per attempt. Even so, I think it’s this difference between ’08 and ’09 that highlights the difference between all-timer Peterson and very-good Peterson.

Viking Defense
While I have a lot of questions about where the Viking offense is going right now, the defense seems very familiar. The strength of the team is still the defensive line, arguably the league’s best and dominant stopping the run and rushing the passer. The weakness of the team is the secondary, a unit that frequently gives up big plays and seems to lack enough playmakers (especially at safety), but also a unit that gets covered by the regular pass rush from the front.

Brett Favre and the Media
One strange column on Favre I’ve encountered recently was this one at Cold, Hard Football Facts. After a summer of regular criticism of Brett Favre on all sorts of football websites (including mainstream media sites), CHFF puts out this column complaining that the media doesn’t criticize Brett Favre enough for his problems. CHFF: if you don’t think the media criticizes Brett Favre, you’re really just not paying attention. Yes, game announcers slather him with adulation (as they do for most big-time quarterbacks--Dan Dierdorf is to Peyton Manning as John Madden was to Favre--though the effusive praise for Favre gets a bit much). And there was a time, yes, when Favre got a lot of free media passes. But things have changed. A few years ago I loved Dr. Z because he was one of the mainstream sportswriters that regularly criticized Brett Favre. Today, it is commonplace. I mean, so commonplace that as blinkered praise for Brett Favre was a cliché five years ago, blinkered criticism of Brett Favre is a cliché today. This CHFF column is really about the media situation of 2006 or earlier, not today.

My point here isn’t to defend Favre, or to claim that criticism of Favre is unjustified. In fact, if I weren’t a Viking fan, I would find the ubiquitous and overwhelming coverage of Favre in the national media annoying, too. My point is that to claim the media doesn’t criticize Favre enough is just not accurate. I’ve written this before: there was a time when Brett Favre got heaped with so much praise that even his mistakes were either blamed on teammates, or inspired even more praise (this time still exists for the game announcers, by the way). But then a backlash occurred: more writers (especially on the internet) criticized Favre, more fans found an outlet (especially on the internet) to express their opinions against Favre and the media, and more people shared their annoyance (especially on the internet) for the way the mainstream sports media covers Favre. Now, it’s commonplace. There are many, many people writing about sports who dislike Favre, root against Favre, and express negative opinions of Favre. Again, that’s fine (though a lot of the criticisms are now, in my opinion, as clichéd as a lot of the praise). But to pretend that criticism of Favre is rare is to distort or ignore reality.

And while I’m repeating myself, here’s an argument that I’ve been making since long before Brett Favre became a Viking:

Brett Favre has made more positive plays than any quarterback in NFL history (hence, the all-time TD record). Brett Favre has also made more negative plays than any quarterback in NFL history (hence, the all-time INT record). Thus, if you are in an argument about Favre and you’re in the “praise Favre” position, you can find plenty of arguments, based on statistics and observation, to make your case. And if you are in the “tear Favre down” position, you can find plenty of arguments, based on statistics and observation, to make your case.

I have been in countless arguments about Favre. I’ve now been on multiple sides of those arguments (as I loathe the Packers, I loathed Favre, and as I love the Vikings, I’ve loved Favre). I’ve observed many more arguments about Favre. In all these arguments, the pro-Favre or anti-Favre side is able to find plentiful “evidence” to support either position convincingly. It’s there: it’s there in the numbers, and it’s there in the games. You can write a masterful argument for or against Favre, supported with stats, observations, citations to specific games, whatever you want. It’s not even hard.

Now before you let any of this sink in too deeply, allow me to undermine my credibility.

When the Vikings are criticized, I feel like I’m being criticized.
It’s a problem. When people who aren’t Viking fans criticize the Vikings or players on the Vikings, I take it personally. I know, too, from talking to other Viking fans that I’m not the only one. It’s irrational and it’s nonsensical.

MVP Box

The only players eligible for the NFL MVP award are quarterbacks and running backs on playoff teams. More specifically, the MVP will be a playoff QB unless a playoff RB has a massive statistical season, and usually the MVP is on a conference #1 seed. Generally, the NFL MVP is a player that is already established as a superstar prior to the season. That's the criteria for the award (tell me I'm wrong).

This year, I'm limiting the serious candidates to the following:

Tony Romo

He'll deserve it if he leads the Cowboys to a #1 seed behind that line.

Aaron Rodgers

I'm telling you, pay attention: the national media loves Rodgers.

Drew Brees

Might win on the "this is the year after your year, and we didn't give you the award last year" principle that may have never actually been put into play for NFL MVP, but I'm inventing it now.

Adrian Peterson

I think he'd need a rushing title and a #1 seed from his team to get it.

Tom Brady

Established superstar with great WRs--he can put up wild numbers again, and he'll be in the playoffs.

Peyton Manning

I was surprised voters gave him the award last year--not because he wasn't deserving of contention (he usually is) but because he had already won three MVPs (well, two and a half), including the year before, and I thought voters were done giving him MVPs at that point. Plus, it was a legitimately competitive field in '09, including incredible seasons from Brett Favre (I thought he deserved it, but I'm biased) and Drew Brees (Chris Johnson too, if he had been a playoff RB). Now I really think voters are done giving Manning MVPs: even if he deserves it, will they give him three in a row for a total of five (well, four and a half)? I'd be surprised.

Chris Johnson

It will take a combination of three things: leading the league in yards from scrimmage, the Titans making the playoffs, and no standout statistical seasons from elite playoff QBs.

I'm leaving out some possibilities--I think the league MVP will be one of these players.

Fantasy Box: Fantasy Superstars.
No one player can be counted on to make your fantasy team a contender. But there are some players out there that can reliably lead your team to contention. You still need to catch a few breaks and manage your team well (not just good drafting and trading, but savvy free agent pickups), but right now I count on these two theories:

Peyton Manning + Elite RB = Contender
I think if you draft Peyton Manning and an elite RB, you will have to manage your team terribly to finish lower than fourth place.

Adrian Peterson = Contender
A team with Peterson can contend for a title; he's a great RB that consistently brings the points. For most of the ‘00s, Ladanian Tomlinson = Contender, and certainly last season Chris Johnson was the guy whose massive numbers made championship contenders last season, but I’ll take Peterson for the next 3-5 years.

Links

Here are the fundamental bookmarks you should have for the NFL season.

Football Outsiders

Based on detailed statistics and close observation of the games: the commentators at FO don't just say things, but look for evidence. I rely on them regularly throughout the season.

ProFootballTalk Rumor Mill

I've never cared for Mike Florio's commentary; however, the site is a time saver by bringing together NFL news onto one easy-to-read site. Good for news, links, and Sunday morning injury updates.

Pro-football-reference.com

A must: I can't write about football without constantly checking player and team stats (from a current season and seasons' past), and this site makes finding the needed stats incredibly easy. I've bookmarked the Viking page separately, since I go there so often. They have a good blog too.

NFL.com Scores

Spectacular for two reasons. First, they put up a lot of highlight videos. My favorite part of being a football fan is, you know, actually watching the games, and I want to see plays from the games I couldn't watch. It's all there. Second, I've found NFL.com to be a very smooth site to follow games that I can't watch on TV. I do find ESPN's box scores easier to read after the games are completed, however.

Why did I bother recommending a bunch of sites that you almost certainly already know about? As Doc Brown says in a wonderful deleted scene from Back to the Future, "beats the shit out of me." And there are other good football sites to read throughout the season (see the links on the side), but these are the bookmarks I absolutely have to have.

Week

Last winter I bought a shirt that said "Up 'n' Autumn," and haven't felt like I can wear it out of season. Now I'm ready to rock! September also means the beginning of vegan chili season at the PV household. I love autumn: the return of football, return of school, return of cooler weather.

Have a good weekend, suckers. Except Packer, Bear, and Saint fans. Well, have a good week and all, but not too good a time during your team's game.

***UPDATE*** (Wednesday evening)

The Viking season starts tomorrow: the whole PV family will be donning Viking clothing. Our fandom is like good musical theater: knowingly over-the-top and full of outrageous spectacle.

Here are some links of interest to add. Normally when I see links I want to post I'll save them for the next week's National Friday League, but since we started early this week, and some of these links are timely, and next week there will be a full week of post-week-one links, blah blah blah, here is bonus coverage and here is a run-on sentence, just for you.

Adrian Peterson says he's better than Chris Johnson (Star Tribune). In sports commentary, whatever happened the year before becomes gospel: Chris Johnson had a better season in 2009 than Adrian Peterson had, so he's the best running back in the NFL. And very likely if somebody other than Chris Johnson has the best RB season in 2010, next offseason that new guy will be the best running back in the NFL. I think there is a legitimate debate about who is better, but I don't think when a guy outperforms another guy in a given year, he's therefore just better. He was better that year.

Percy Harvin: ready to play (Star Tribune). In one sense, the impact of Harvin's migraine issues is overblown. When he's not suffering from migraines, Harvin should be 100%. When he doesn't have the migraine, there should be no impact on his performance, right?

Linebacker issues for the Saints (Star Tribune). Vikes have a shot if they can run successfully on the Saints.

Doug Farrar on some NFL "strategies and schemes" that seem to be going out of vogue (Yahoo!).

Mike Tanier and Doug Farrar on what you don't see from TV angles (Football Outsiders). There are many reasons I love watching games live. I've seen games at the Metrodome from a lot of different angles, very rarely from a sideline type view that would be similar to TV. Even from a good distance, there's a better sense of pass coverage, routes, movement of the front seven, blocking, etc. Attending a game at the Metrodome is, for me, almost an experience of communal ecstasy. It's also great for seeing football.

The bard of the Vikings, Jim Klobuchar (MinnPost).

Terrell Owens, who once said that if the Eagles had Brett Favre instead of Donovan McNabb they'd be undefeated, has a point about Brett Favre and skipping camp (PFT). I've made it clear above that there are plenty of voices criticizing Favre, including for some of his offseason moves of recent years. But there would be many, many more voices criticizing such moves if it were Terrell Owens pulling them.

Regression toward the mean, if you want more football details on it (Football Outsiders).

Adrian Peterson and fumbling (National Football Post).

One more day, suckers!

You have a right not to read this post

Let me go ahead and slap two theses up on the church door (I never claimed to be Martin Luther, and evidently I'm 93 theses short of Martin Luther).

1. When media members complain about media saturation of Favre coverage, they are contributing to and adding to media saturation of Favre coverage.

2. In the age of the internet, and of numerous television, radio, and print sources devoted to sports coverage, it is a bit silly to complain about sports media overcoverage or undercoverage of anything.*

I present these theses because Doug Farrar (who frequently tweets complaints about media saturation of Favre coverage) includes in a Yahoo! Shutdown Corner post these silly sentences:

"The Vikings have a right to know what their quarterback is going to do, whether they think so or not. And we have a right to hear and read about things that have nothing to do with Brett Favre."

The first sentence is obviously flawed: it's nice of Farrar to defend the Vikings' "rights" that they evidently don't care about, but obviously if they wanted to assert this right, they could (the fact that they don't suggests either they know Favre is coming back, or they know he's important to their plans and giving him freedom and little pressure is how to get him to come back). But it's the second sentence there that is absurdly silly (perhaps intentionally so, though the sentiment seems sincere).

Of course "we have a right to hear and read about things that have nothing to do with Brett Favre." All you have to do to assert this right is hear and read about them! Nobody has ever required me to read an article about Brett Favre. Nobody has denied me the right to read or hear about pretty much whatever sports story I want to read or hear about. The internet helps a lot: there are so many people writing about so many things that it is not terribly difficult to find some coverage of whatever it is you're interested in. This is especially the case with a popular sports league like the NFL: search for news or commentary on what you're interested in, and there's a good chance you'll find at least one article. As a fantasy football enthusiast, I've been noting how seemingly every day I come across another article focusing on Steven Jackson, to the point that every day my fantasy opinion of him changes (between July 9th and 20th, there's this, this, this, this, and this). Not only do you have a right to read NFL stories not about Favre, it's extraordinarily easy to do so.

And what if somebody doesn't want to hear about Favre? For that matter, what if I found Steven Jackson dull? Do what Lisa Simpson advises in The Simpsons Halloween episode when the advertising mascots come to life to terrorize the town: just don't look. I regularly check every one of those sites above featuring Steven Jackson articles, but if I wasn't interested in Steven Jackson (am I even interested in Steven Jackson?), all I have to do is not click on those links. If I'm watching a sports television network covering something I'm not interested in, I can switch to another sports television network that might be covering something I'm interested in, or if I insist on learning about sports during this moment I could even lower my eyes from the television to a sports magazine or a newspaper sports page. I have zero interest in learning details about rookie contract negotiations: in early and mid July it doesn't matter, and even once training camps begin the headline pretty much tells me what I want or need to know. Rather than complaining about media coverage of something I'm not interested in, I take the drastic step of not paying attention to media coverage of something I'm not interested in.

Hey, I've got a tag devoted to bad sportswriting: I'm not saying critique of sports media coverage is invalid. And there is sometimes call to complain about overcoverage or undercoverage of a particular story. But this brings us back to the first of my incredible two theses. When media members complain about Favre, complain about his indecision, complain about media overcoverage of Favre, criticize the attention given to Favre or the attention Favre evidently craves, they are talking about Favre. They are contributing to the media attention given to Favre. For the rest of us consumers of media, these complaints about the media's Favre coverage only contribute to the saturation.

So my advice to people like Farrar who are sick of Favre: just don't look. Don't worry about the Vikings' rights: they can probably assert their own. Don't worry about your right to read and hear about other NFL stories: nobody is taking that right away from you. Just don't look.

*specifying "sports media" is important: there are hard news stories for which the type or amount of coverage by mainstream media sources can have real consequences in policy, politics, public behavior, etc. But sports coverage is a bit more like entertainment coverage in its significance.

Addendum

I think I should emphasize thesis one a bit more. One reason I feel that Favre saturates the media is the backlash itself: I regularly come across media commentary criticizing Favre and/or the media's coverage of Favre (recently, here and here*). On the whole, these articles actually add to the saturation of Favre for consumers of media; in effect, media members whose complaint is too much coverage of Favre add to the saturation of Favre coverage simply by complaining at all. Some days it seems I come across more criticism/complain about media coverage of Favre than I come across Favre stories themselves.

I think there is too much media coverage of Favre, but the backlash has contributed to there being even more media coverage of Favre. As I've written before,

"several years ago, a backlash really started to develop (prominently on the internet) against the media's treatment of Favre, to the point that complaints about the media coverage of Favre have become the cliche. Furthermore, Favre's behavior in recent years has led to a lot of criticism from mainstream media sources."

That's what I'm saying: the complaining about media coverage of Favre is often the conventional, uninsightful, predictable cliche commentary itself. Many people are exhausted with the media giving too much attention to Favre; I'm actually exhausted with people complaining about the media giving too much attention to Favre!

*By the way, Adam Schein: when you take your time to make a "Go Away" video to complain about Favre, during which you say "I've been done with Favre for years," well, evidently you weren't.

How speculation becomes a report, and rumor becomes story

In an NFL.com article, Michael Lombardi includes under the heading "Things I hear..." this nugget:

"The next player to complain about his contract will be Minnesota Vikings running back Adrian Peterson, who missed the mandatory minicamp due to a scheduling conflict."

What is Lombardi's source for this information? Did he hear this from somebody close to Adrian Peterson? An official with the Vikings? Is this gossip among NFL team executives? Is this what Lombardi's friends in the media are talking about? Do deer come into Lombardi's backyard at twilight and whisper NFL secrets to him?

Well, who the hell knows? But unless Lombardi makes a reference to somebody saying this, it is hardly a report. My guess is that this is some speculation and gossip Lombardi has been hearing, probably from a number of directions. My guess is that's why Lombardi put it under the "Things I hear..." category: it's a part of the buzz, a rumor, things NFL people talk about. And it's not exactly out-there speculation: Peterson is an elite player still getting paid under his rookie contract. I would guess that Lombardi is right: at some point Peterson is probably going to want a new, bigger contract, feeling he's outperformed his rookie contract. Speculation in that direction is fairly reasonable.

And I want to make one thing clear: there is nothing wrong with that. Lombardi is trying to write an entertaining July NFL column, and he includes some of the things he hears people talk about to amuse and inform us. That's absolutely fine, as long as we take it for what it is. Unless Lombardi refers to a specific source (even an anonymous source), this is gossip. I can't see anybody reasonably calling this a "report."

Of course things change when you get to Pro Football Talk. Under the headline "Report: Contract confrontation coming for Peterson, Vikings," Michael David Smith refers to Lombardi's mention and writes:

"Michael Lombardi of NFL.com reports that Peterson will be the next NFL player to complain about his contract."

Lombardi "reports"? Under what standard of journalism does it count as a "reporting" that a writer just writes something he hears with no suggestion whatsoever who he's heard it from? Again, nothing wrong with Lombardi's note here: it's the "Things he hears..." bit, and after all, this is one of the things I hear too (from Lombardi!). But there was nothing "reported" by Lombardi (at least not journalistically: I suppose technically Lombardi is reporting things he's heard to us). There's no "story" being reported.

By the end of Smith's post, he's taken for granted that this unsourced mention in Lombardi's "Things I hear..." portion of a column is truth:

"So it's no surprise that Peterson isn't satisfied with his contract. And it shouldn't be a surprise if he soon takes his dissatisfaction public."

Look, like I said, I think Lombardi and Smith are probably right; I agree with Smith when he says "Players who produce at that level just aren't content to play out their rookie contracts and wait to become free agents." But to call what Lombardi wrote a "report," to refer to his mention as reporting, and by the end to just accept this as a true statement, well, that's how speculation becomes a report and a rumor becomes a story.

(For a good blog post about Lombardi's mention, see Judd Zulgad in Access Vikings. Not only does Zulgad treat Lombardi's nugget for what it is, but he informatively adds detail about Peterson's contract to not only pass on--and further--speculation, but contribute something concrete and meaningful to it).

In this spirit, I am going to start my own feature here, called "Things I discern from the ether..." Feel free to take this as a report: after all, I am discerning it from the ether and reporting it to you.

Things I discern from the ether...

The Mayans stopped their calendar at 2012 because that is either when the Vikings will win the Super Bowl or when they will move out of Minnesota. The Mayans knew there is no reason to keep track of history after that point.

The Spirit Of Fantasy Football no longer resides in the Shadow Of The End Zone; it has moved into Chris Johnson's socks.

The Green Bay Packers are wieners.

Addendum

Lombardi's wording itself suggests this is not a report, but a prediction. If Lombardi had said something like "Adrian Peterson will soon be complaining about his contract," that could be taken as a report (without a source referenced, I'd still think it a prediction rather than a report, but for now, whatever). But how can Lombardi know Adrian Peterson will be "the next player to complain about his contract" unless Lombardi knows Peterson will complain about it immediately after Lombardi publishes his column? That's a prediction, not a report. What if all of a sudden Joe Flacco starts complaining about his contract today? Then Lombardi's "report" is wrong. And when Lombardi writes Peterson will be "the next player to complain," that suggests he hasn't already started to complain (privately or publicly), which further suggests there isn't a concrete story being reported here.

It's clear this is speculation and prediction; why is Michael David Smith calling this a "report"?

Addendum 2

Here's a parallel:

Minnesota governor Tim Pawlenty is probably going to run for president: there are several pieces of evidence pointing in that direction, so it is not surprising that a lot of political observers talk about it. If Political Pundit X wrote in a column, "I hear Tim Pawlenty is going to run for president," nobody would reasonably claim that Political Pundit X is "reporting" that Pawlenty will run for president, right? I suppose it's possible that Political Rumormonger Y might post something like "Political Pundit X reports that Tim Pawlenty will run for president," but few reasonable thinkers would follow a link to Political Pundit X's column and think that's a concrete story being reported, right? Some might even call it irresponsible for Political Rumormonger Y to take a casual, unsourced sentence and call it a "report," right? That's why we'd know that Rumormonger Y is a rumormonger, right?

Granted, Pawlenty running for president seems a lot more obvious than Adrian Peterson complaining about his contract. But either way, a rumormonger claiming a pundit's casual unsourced claim is a reported story would definitely secure the rumormonger's reputation for (uncredible?) rumormongering.

Addendum 3

So much for reports.

Blizzard

Jason Cole ranks teams by quarterback (Yahoo!).

The Vikings' statement regarding the political lack of priority for a new stadium (Pioneer Press). If you must know, I have extremely mixed feelings about a public-funded Viking stadium, at both a rational and emotional level. I feel that every argument for either side has a quite reasonable counterargument.

Christopher Gates on how the Vikes could do starting the season without Pat and Kevin (Daily Norseman).

Really good comments from Ross Tucker on voluntary offseason workouts (SI).

Vic Carucci on David Garrard and the Jaguars (NFL.com).

Fantasy Heavy

Christopher Harris's top 200 (ESPN).

Matthew Berry's top 100 (ESPN).

Christopher Harris's mock draft (ESPN). Would you judge me harshly if I told you I've done many fantasy mock drafts in my day?

David Komer with a lot of good stuff (SI).

Jahvid Best (SI).

Adam Levitan on the Rotoworld/Beckett mock draft (Pancake Blocks). Here's what I don't get: when these magazines get a bunch of individuals together to do a "mock" draft, do they really just have a mock? Wouldn't they just go ahead and have a league, now that they've drafted teams? And if they do, then why still call it a mock?

The Steelers' fantasy prospects, from Hal Spivack (NFL Fanhouse). I would love to draft Mike Wallace, just so I can scream "Where's Wallace!?!" at the TV next fall.

Where do we go from here?

Since I had the sports fan equivalent of a nervous breakdown and basically avoided football for four months (I have a brief recollection that Ladanian Tomlinson was almost a Viking--that can't have been real, was it?), I feel a little behind. This summer, I plan on buying not only a fantasy football magazine or two (but not Fanball's mag: I'm looking for a change), but maybe one or two general NFL preview magazines. I know, the internet has mostly made such things pointless. But I remember loving such magazines as a kid, and I'll enjoy the thrill of sitting around flipping through a magazine (I freaking love magazines) more than I'll enjoy sitting with a sweaty hot laptop on my lap.

One thing I'll never again comment on here

There are some useful football column gimmicks. A mock draft isn't about being right: it's an easy, concise way to inform readers about the draft order, the top prospects, and team needs.

I might even come around to seeing that Power Rankings columns can serve a function. But there's one thing that's beyond pointless: responding to an individual football writer's Power Rankings with anger. First of all, who gives a shit? Second of all, who gives a shit? Third of all, why get worked up about what one person thinks? Fourth of all, what possible impact could one individual's power rankings have? And above all, don't actually respond to a football writer's Power Rankings: all you do is verify for him/her that he/she is important, make him/her feel edgy and controversial even when he/she is not, and you give him/her an easy next column, responding to the angry critics. Don't do it.

NATIONAL FRIDAY LEAGUE (week nine)

2009 Vikings: first half
2009 Minnesota Vikings

7-1, including four wins road wins, 5-0 in the conference and 3-0 in the division, and five home games remaining. It's hard to be in much better shape right now. Let's look at some things that happened in the first half and how it might be relevant to the second half.

Good Surprises
Sidney Rice and Percy Harvin: Rice is on pace for 1,000 yards, and has started to fulfill the potential he flashed two years ago. I thought Harvin would make a handful of important plays per game, but I didn't expect him to be this dynamic.

Brett Favre: I'm still worried about whether he can be this effective in January, but I didn't expect him to be this dominant.

Adrian Peterson's workload: He's currently on pace for 326 carries: a manageable load far short of his 363 carries last season. If the Vikes can win without wearing Peterson down, all the better.

Special Teams: the return coverage has greatly improved, Percy Harvin has been a spectacular kick returner, and Darius Reynaud and Jaymar Johnson have been effective as punt returners. Add in Ryan Longwell's kicking, and the Viking special teams have been very good.

Pass Protection: it was a mess during the first two or three weeks, and since then has been really terrific.

Disappointments
Tyrell Johnson and Madieu Williams: the safeties aren't making enough plays, and they're also a reason the Vikes are vulnerable. Pass defense as a whole has been pretty bad when the Vikes get a lead.

Bernard Berrian: I'm really hoping for an explosive second half of the season from Berrian. Injuries have hampered him in a lot of ways so far, but he's good enough to be better than he has been.

Chester Taylor: 2.7 yards per rush is pretty lousy, and his dropped pass on a screen play was a big factor in the Vikes' one defeat.

Antoine Winfield's injury: Not only because it really affects the entire defense, but because he's so fun to watch play.

The consistency of the running game: whether it's AP's style,struggles on the offensive line, of the defense's focus, I feel far too many of the running plays get stuffed at the line.

Jared Allen: 10.5 sacks is on pace for 21, which would be short of the NFL single-season record. Allen should be doing more.*

*of course I'm joking. But Allen's spectacular play is not a surprise, and as he's arguably the best defensive player in the league right now and in position to win Defensive Player of the Year (essentially an MVP award for defenders, since only QBs and RBs are eligible for MVP), I have to mention him in my mid-way assessment. While we're at it, the versatile dominance of Kevin Williams needs to be once again appreciated, though it is completely unsurprising.

Why I'll continue to fear the Packers
In 2008, the Colts beat the Chargers in the regular season, but lost to them in the postseason. The Eagles beat the Cardinals in the regular season, but lost to them in the postseason. The Titans beat the Ravens in the regular season, but lost to them in the postseason.

In 2007, three of the Giants' four playoff victories were against teams that defeated them during the regular season (the Cowboys had beaten them twice).

During those years, there were also teams that defeated the same opponent in both the regular season and the postseason (the '07 Jags beat the Steelers twice, the '07 Chargers beat the Colts twice, the '08 Ravens beat the Dolphins twice, the '08 Steelers beat the Chargers twice and the Ravens thrice). But if I looked at recent history, I'm not sure I could be confident that a regular season outcome will predict a postseason outcome.

I'll fear the Packers until there's no possibility they could face the Vikings in the playoffs.

Special Teams
Grant's Tomb points out the subtle importance of some special teams play:

"Some of the ways the special teams helped the Vikings were subtle – like punt returner Jaymar Johnson’s refusal to call for fair catches or not catch them at all and let the ball hit the Lambeau Field turf and roll deep into Viking territory on Packer punts. [...] his fearlessness (and sure-handedness) in catching and returning punts shaved a few extra yards off the total the Vikings offence had to gain to get into scoring position."

I remember hearing Bill Parcells (don't ask me when, where, or why) talk about a playoff game between his Giants and the Washington team. According to Parcells, the Giants' punt returner consistently called fair catches, while the Washington punt returner let the ball bounce. Parcells estimated that the difference accounted for around 100 yards of field position. Johnson saves yards by catching the ball in traffic rather than letting it bounce (even when he does fair catch it), and that contribution shouldn't be underestimated.

One reason the Vikings' offense has been so successful at scoring points is because they've consistently had good field position. In '09, Percy Harvin is averaging 30.7 yards per kickoff return and the Viking punt returners are averaging a collective 10.7 yards per return. And, as DC points out, Johnson is willing to field the ball to save the Vikes the yardage a punt hitting the ground could cost them.

The field position helps the Vikes score points and limits some of the wear and tear key players like Brett Favre and Adrian Peterson might have to endure if they were forced to drive the bulk of the field every drive.

Links
Brett Favre had the best quarterbacking day of Week 8 (Football Outsiders).

Jason Cole talks to a scout that is impressed with the Vikings; don't read this if you don't like getting your hopes up (Yahoo!).

Don Banks provides some more optimism going forward (Sports Illustrated).

Mark Craig asks the question that I can't help thinking about every day: what if the Vikings and Saints meet in the playoffs (Star Tribune)?

Comparing Adrian Peterson 2008 to Adrian Peterson 2009 (Access Vikings).

Fantasy Box
Week 8 was my first week of lineup regret in 2009: Joseph Addai and Austin Collie were in, Pierre Thomas and Bernard Berrian were out. Lineup regret is my least favorite part of fantasy football.

Intriguing Games
Week Nine Matchups

The bye means relaxing football to follow, and we've got a lot of good games to follow.

Cardinals/Bears: are these teams playoff contenders? Do these teams suck? Depends on the week.

Ravens/Bengals: the three-way race for the AFC North is interesting.

Packers/Buccaneers: during the Vikes' bye, we know we won't get to see the Vikings win. We still can hope to see the Packers lose.

Dolphins/Patriots: after they beat up on Tennesse and Tampa, then took a week off, aren't we anxious to see if they keep rolling? This week I finally partook of the annual tradition of adding Laurence Maroney to my Hazelweird fantasy team.

Texans/Colts: if you depend on Matt Schaub or Andre Johnson for your fantasy prospects, take note: the 2008 Colts allowed six passing touchdowns, a total so low I'm grammatically required to spell out the number. Through seven games the 2009 Colts have allowed three touchdown passes. While they can be run on, the Colts just don't give up passing touchdowns. I'm pretty enthused to be riding the Manning-Wayne combo.

Panthers/Saints: First down, DeAngelo Williams. Second down, Jonathan Stewart. Third down, DeAngelo Williams. Maybe mix in an end-around to Steve Smith. Just do it: run down the Saints' throat, knock them down a peg, help me find another cliche, and resurrect your season to go to .500.

Titans/49ers: another contest of dueling running backs: Chris Johnson and Frank Gore try to top each other.

Chargers/Giants: fantasy matchup of the week? Lots of starters here.

Cowboys/Eagles: Another rich fantasy matchup.

Ramblings on Sacks and Rating
At the Star Tribune, Mark Craig points out that Aaron Rodgers leads the league in passer rating, and also takes a high number of sacks:

"Rodgers' lofty passer rating and his ridiculously high sack total are one of the stranger contrasts in the league at the halfway point this season."

But the contrast isn't really related: sacks and lost yardage from sacks have no impact on a quarterback's rating. It's a problem with using passer rating: throwing the ball away hurts your rating, while taking a sack has no impact. Losing a down and yardage from a sack really hurts a QB's team, yet passer rating doesn't account for it. But the point is that it's not any "strange contrast" to see a high sack total with a high passer rating.

Craig then compares Rodgers' sack total to the sack totals of the #2 and #3 ranked QBs in passer rating:

"Peyton Manning is No. 2 in passer rating (109.3). He's been sacked five times. Drew Brees is No. 3 in passer rating (107.6). He's been sacked 11 times."

Stopping the comparison with the #2 and #3 passers is a bit deceiving: look further at the league leaders in passer rating and you'll see that among the league leaders in sacks, nobody is close to Rodgers, but several have a lot more sacks than Manning or Brees do. Rodgers actually reminds me of Ben Roethlisberger. Each holds the ball a long time, and while sometimes that results in a sack, sometimes that also results in a big play. Either way, the sack total has no impact on either QB's passer rating.

There's another problem here: passer rating is an efficiency stat, while sacks are a total stat. I'd like it better if the comparison were between two efficiency stats: passer rating and sack rate (sack rate is a better number to look at than sacks anyway). Aaron Rodgers has been sacked 12.1% of the time, an extremely high rate. But his rate isn't that far ahead of Ben Roethlisberger's rate in 2006: that year Roethlisberger was sacked 10.4% of the time, and still managed to post a 104.1 rating. If you want a comparison to this season, Donovan McNabb has a passer rating of 103.2, but is getting sacked 9.5% of the time.

If there is any correlation between a high passer rating and a low sack total, it is that an elite QB is likely to have both. But that's not always the case either.

Free advertising on a little-read niche blog.
Community is my favorite show on network TV right now. You should watch it.

This has been free advertising on a little-read niche blog. If Joel McHale would like to send me a "The Soup" coffee mug, I wouldn't turn it down.

Weekend
The Vikings have a bye this week; I've chosen this weekend to take my family out of town to visit my parents. I used a semicolon to link these two independent clauses to show that they are related. The semicolon is my favorite punctuation mark; it is perfect for combining two independent clauses into the same sentence.

Have a good weekend, everybody. Except Packer, Bear, and Saint fans.

NATIONAL FRIDAY LEAGUE (week 8)

Vikings-Packers Preview
Minnesota Vikings
Green Bay Packers
Last Matchup: Vikings 30, Packers 23

The first matchup between these teams featured some defensive performances on both sides that will be difficult to repeat. The Packers held Adrian Peterson to 2.2 yards per rush attempt, and stripped the ball from him, returning it for a touchdown: I don’t believe they can stop him so effectively twice in one season. The Vikings sacked Aaron Rodgers eight times, including a forced fumble and one for a safety, and harried him all game long: though the Viking pass rush has been consistently good this season, it’s hard to envision that sort of success again.

The anomalies in this matchup go further. In their previous three games against the Packers, the Vikes have allowed four non-offensive touchdowns (a punt return, an interception return and a punt return, and fumble recovery return). It’s improbable for the Packers to keep that sort of run going, too, and the Viking defense has been successful at limiting the Packers’ offensive points. If the Vikings can avoid turnovers and cover punt returns well, they have a good chance at controlling the game.

The Packer offense seems successful at connecting on long passes: Rodgers averages 14.1 yards per completion, and Donald Driver (17.7) and Greg Jennings (16.2) each have high yards per reception. The Viking safeties Madieu Williams and Tyrell Johnson have struggled, but the Cover-2 scheme seems designed to prevent long passing plays. I think if the Vikes prevent the big play and force the Packers to try sustain long drives, they’ll be successful at stopping drives.

It’s pretty rare for the Vikes to sweep the Packers, and it is usually under special circumstances. They did it in ’98, when they were particularly awesome, and they did it in ’05, when the Packers were particularly terrible.

It’s a critical game, obviously. A win puts the Vikes 2.5 games ahead of the Packers with a season sweep; a loss puts the Vikes .5 games ahead with a season split. Either way, it’s worth noting that after the bye, the Vikes play three straight games in Thunderdome, against the Lions, Seahawks, and Bears. This is a big rivalry game, but the game won’t make or break the season for us.

Good or Bad?
Naufahu Tahi and Jim Kleinsasser have combined for 11 receptions this season. I scream into the abyss every time I see a pass targeted to either of these players—neither is a playmaker of any sort. On the other hand, the fact that they catch some passes might be an indicator that Brett Favre has been willing to check down rather than force something deep. Neither are generally a first option on any passing play, and a pass directed toward either usually amounts to slightly better than throwing it away. So maybe every time Favre throws to Tahi or Kleinsasser, we should be recognizing that it was NOT a pass he threw into double-coverage.

George Costanza and Me
(cross-posted at That’s how we do it in the T.C.)

In one episode of Seinfeld, George is on the verge of success, which fills him with anxiety and dread. He frets to his therapist, “God would never let me be successful. He’ll kill me first. He’ll never let me be happy.” “I thought you didn’t believe in God,” the therapist says. “I do for the bad things!” George replies.

I feel personally connected to the Minnesota Vikings. Their shortcomings are my shortcomings. When they fail, I feel I have failed, that I have opened myself up personally to the ridicule of the masses. When they win, I feel euphoric joy, but I don’t feel pride, exactly. I don’t think their strengths are my strengths, nor their successes my successes.

When people insult the Vikings, I feel they are insulting me personally. But that doesn’t mean that I consider praise for the Vikings praise for me. George Costanza believes in God only for the bad things. The Vikings are me, but only when they lose.

Other Week Eight Games of Note
Week Eight Schedule

Broncos-Ravens. The Ravens are a better football team. I think.

49ers-Colts. In the Hazelweird Fantasy League, I start Manning, Wayne, Addai, the Colt Defense, plus Frank Gore (and if Bernard Berrian is out, add Austin Collie). I think I ought to pay attention.

Giants-Eagles. The NFC East looks like a three-team race, so these head-to-head matchups between those three teams are really interesting.

Falcons-Saints. I spend an awful lot of my time thinking about the Saints and rooting for them to fail.

Sportswriting
Sports Illustrated’s Andrew Perloff has been irritating me. His “Against the Grain” columns claim they’re going to go “in the opposite direction of your average pro football analysis.” It sounds like he’s going to be counterintuitive for the sake of being counterintuitive, but the columns aren’t even that useful: the commentary is usually pretty mundane. I find that he primarily makes claims, but that he doesn’t offer much analysis or evidence in support of those claims (which makes his work rather like “your average pro football analysis”).

My least favorite column this season was his post debunking myths about wide receivers: he presents a series of unsourced straw man propositions, then proceeds to debunk these easily debunkable propositions. It’s not just that the straw man propositions are easily debunkable; I’m also doubtful that some of these propositions are widely circulated or believed.

In the same column, Perloff also invents a claim that apparently “everyone said,” then proceeds to disagree with it (his argument of disagreement is extremely oversimplified and, in my opinion, mostly wrong, but I won’t get into that now). Generalizations are often a sign of shoddy writing: attributing a view to “everyone” is usually a mistake, and disagreeing with a fantasy “everyone” is sometimes a sign of a writer who thinks he’s some edgy voice crying in the wilderness, when usually he’s just not working hard.

I may be too hard on Perloff: during a semester I get accustomed to evaluating student writing, so I read very critically. But I also think it’s Perloff’s “against the grain” tone that gets to me, as if he’s saying “Hey, look at me! I’m saying something different!”

An annual reminder
We're all just Linus waiting for our Great Pumpkin.

Links
Peyton Manning, in his prime (pro-football-reference.com). By the way, my primarily Viking-focused readers: I appreciate the patience with which you tolerate my constant praise for Peyton Manning.

Football Outsiders’ DVOA: Packers #4, Vikings #8

How the lousy teams are inflating opponents’ passing numbers (18 to 88).

Mike Tanier reads Monday Night Jihad so you don't have to (FO).

I thought about linking to this Onion article, because it was sports-related and funny. But then I thought this Onion article was funnier. And then I thought this Onion article was truth-through-satire and is more important. So I'm linking to them all.

Timberwolves, suckers!
You may know me as a neurotic and obsessive Viking blogger, but when I was growing up, I thought about basketball mostly all the time, and so I’ve watched a lot of very awful Minnesota Timberwolves teams. I’ll follow any Wolves team. This year I’ll be going to a bunch of Wolves games; I kind of like the Target Center and the area around it, and I fell into a bunch of free tickets for the season. So, Jonny Flynn, suckers!

Weekend
I’m renaming months what they are. October is now called “Candy.” It is always around, and I am powerless to resist it.

Have a good Halloween weekend, everybody. Except Packer, Bear, and Saint fans.

Expectations of reactions, and reactions, to Favre's week one performance

The weirdest football columns I've seen after Sunday's games are those telling us to curb our enthusiasm about Brett Favre's performance. They are weird because I'm not sure how many people are really gushing over Favre's 14/21, 110 yard, 1 touchdown, 0 interception performance. These writers seem to be writing to the reaction they expect, not any reaction they've actually seen.

Sports Illustrated's Andrew Perloff tells us "Let's start with five Week 1 quarterback performances everyone will over-hype" and begins with Favre:

"He looks just fine as a caretaker against an opponent that can't stop the run and isn't a threat on offense. He won't have the luxury of sitting back against tougher competition."

In this case, I guess I'll just say Perloff made an inaccurate prediction: he tells us that this is a performance "everyone will over-hype," but he's just wrong. Certainly not "everybody" is overhyping it.

Yahoo!'s Dan Wetzel's column is titled "Too early to get excited over Favre." The column is fairly reasonable: the questions about Favre are how he'll hold up in December and January, not how he'll play in September (at least, those are my concerns). Like Perloff, he points out that the Browns were an easy opponent, and that Favre is going to face tougher teams this season. We know this. But Wetzel tells us:

"Vikings fans should temper their emotions because every thing always starts well with Favre. It’s the ending that gets dicey."

And

"There’s no reason to be displeased with Favre’s opener. There’s also no reason to be naïve."

Wetzel also expects gushing in the media that I'm not sure exists. Quoting Childress calling the performance "workmanlike" and using words like "uspectacular" and routine," Wetzel writes:

"This was a slightly more restrained – and honest – assessment than Favre will receive from his worshipping media crew."

I don't feel like making a survey of media reactions to Favre's game. What I will do here, however, is survey Viking bloggers' reactions. We're the fans: sure we're neurotic, but we're also the ones most likely to overreact to victory, aren't we? How many of us were gushing? Do we need to temper our emotions, to make sure we're not being naive? Here's a look at all the Viking blogs I have in the blogroll that wrote directly about the game.

Grant's Tomb: decidedly not gushing: DC didn't see anything that answered his questions about Favre.

Defensive Indifference: decidedly negative: Jason complains Favre didn't get down the field enough and didn't do anything Rosenfels or Jackson couldn't do in this game.

(just a side note: I'm speculating that against inferior opponents, the Vikings are going to try protect Favre, winning as often as they can with running and defense. When they need it--and when they're more comfortable in pass protection--they'll open up the pass more. That might be wishful thinking).

Daily Norseman: Anthony21 is sober about Favre ("unspectacular," "wasn't asked to do too much"), Gonzo praises Favre, but moderately, and devotes most of his attention to other Vikings.

The Viking Ship: The Jazzy One offers a fairly objective assessment, I think: praising what Favre did well, pointing out that there were some problems ("Brett just didn't seem to be on the same page with his receivers").

Vikings Gab: Adam Warwas is impressed with Favre: because he played like a game manager.

The Viking Age: a couple days after the game, danzinksi is starting to believe that "this crazy Favre thing just might work." He's positive about what's going on, optimistic that this is a good situation.

Skol Vikes: Newt says little about Favre, but does believe strongly in the Vikings team.

Viking Nation: GB Nordic offers more praise for Favre as game manager.

Vikes Geek: Vikes Geek says little directly about Favre, focusing on Brad Childress.

Maybe Viking bloggers are not representative of most Viking fans (it is possible). And maybe Viking bloggers are more reasonable than national sports commentators (of course we are: we're awesome!!!!!). But I don't see Favre's performance being overhyped, and I don't see naive emotions that need to be tempered.

An extra thought
I think many people are responding to a reality that existed several years ago but doesn't anymore: a reality in which the majority of the mainstream media overpraised Favre and refused to acknowledge his flaws. But several years ago, a backlash really started to develop (prominently on the internet) against the media's treatment of Favre, to the point that complaints about the media coverage of Favre have become the cliche. Furthermore, Favre's behavior in recent years has led to a lot of criticism from mainstream media sources.

I also think/speculate, with no evidence, that the anti-Favre sentiment is behind this year's massive number of positive predictions for the Green Bay Packers, and for Aaron Rodgers specifically.